Exclusive: Proxénète ou entrepreneure?

[Mod 9]

With 20 girls and 3 rooms for incalls, a pimp is complaining that she does not have the full benefits she deserves when she makes up to 7000$ per week because she does not get parental leave, a credit rating and declare her full income.
http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/regional/archives/2011/03/20110323-180807.html
Also see video:
http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/850295181001/proxenete-ou-entrepreneure/

 

[gugu]

With 20 girls and 3 rooms for incalls, a pimp is complaining that she does not have the full benefits she deserves when she makes 7000$ per week because she does not get parental leave, a credit rating and declare her full income.

That is certainly not what she is saying. Do you need translation?

 

[Mod 9]

What she said:

Marie, possède une agence d'escorte qui emploie une vingtaine de personnes travaillant en rotation dans trois chambres de motel.

L'entreprise de Marie peut rapporter jusqu'à 7000$ par semaine.

«Quand je suis tombée enceinte, que j'ai eu mes enfants, je n'ai pas eu droit à des congés parentaux. (...) on puisse officialiser notre revenu... on puisse avoir un crédit... on puisse être reconnues financièrement.»

which part would you like to correct? Go ahead.

 

[gugu]

Your are linking different statements from different parts of the video. What she says basically is that what she does at the present is defined as being a "proxénète", but that she is in reality a business woman that should be considered as any other business person, pay her taxes and profit from the governmental programs. You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.

 

[Mod 9]

You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.

I am not attacking anything nor anybody.
Initial statement changed to 'up to'.
As for legalisation, I will let members discuss on that.

 

[gugu]

Huh I am not attacking anything nor anybody.

My apologies. I did put intentions in your wording.

 

[eastender]

The Numbers

Your are linking different statements from different parts of the video. What she says basically is that what she does at the present is defined as being a "proxénète", but that she is in reality a business woman that should be considered as any other business person, pay her taxes and profit from the governmental programs. You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.

Let's give gugu's interpretation the benefit of the doubt and look at the numbers.

The raw numbers are up to $7000.00 a week, generated by 20 people employed by one entrepaneur = 21 total people involved in the enterprise.

If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week then this generates app $333.33 per person if capped at the maximum $7000.00 per week.Given that the minimum wage is $9.50 this means everyone is working for a rate below minimum wage even before the expenses are factored out.

At $200.00 a session $7000.00 requires 35 sessions/1 hour. At $140.00 a session $7000.00 requires 50 sessions/ 1 hour. So three rooms for seven days = 21 days,means each room would be used between 1 2/3 to 2.4 times a day.

So the following possibilities have to be considered:

1.) The numbers thrown out are total BS and a number of people have bought them hook,line and sinker without thinking things thru. Significantly greater dollars are being generated.

2.) The numbers are accurate. Then the person in question should not be running a business due to ineptitude since there is not sufficient money to be made.

Either way ................

 

[sigma69]

No one should be surprised that the media does a crummy job.
If you follow what passes for journalism (in print, radio or television), you will repeatedly encounter journalists doing a crummy job and not doing the most basic fact checking. And this is especially true when "controversial" topics such as the war on drugs or sex work are covered. The media will generally tow the official line favored by government and law enforcement.

One recent case reported in the Village Voice: data used to pressure Craiglist to close its adult services section was junk science. See article here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03...etwork-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/

The war on drugs is replete with such examples. Jack Shafer of Slate.com specialized is debunking the press's coverage of complex issues.

One quote from Shafer (Dec 2010): "Where do most people get their information about drugs? From the press. And where does the press get its information? Primarily from other misinformed journalists, lazy cops, grieving parents, clueless drug counselors, spurious Web sites, and gibbering druggies. By indulging their worst class biases, by following their newsman instincts to hype the sensational or dramatic aspects of the story, by giving in to fear and ignorance, journalists keep their readers in the dark about drugs."
http://www.slate.com/id/2276597/

It is the same with sex work.

No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. And especially to show to Mr and Mrs Average (who can only dream of making that much in a week and know only myths about sex work) that these are "criminal" and reprehensible activities. It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.

 

[eastender]

Both Sides

It is the same with sex work.

No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. And especially to show to Mr and Mrs Average (who can only dream of making that much in a week and know only myths about sex work) that these are "criminal" and reprehensible activities. It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.

Point is that both sides cannot be trusted to provide accurate numbers as evidenced here.

 

[sigma69]

Sex workers should make their income tax reports and be proud of what they do. With no sex industry, Quebec economy would fall on its ass...

Very true 10-4Roger.
BUT, when you work in a gray zone, there is always the fear that law enforcement will turn against you in response to some political or media pressure to act against perceived "immoral" activities.

In our world, if you live in a gray zone, you are probably not too inclined to share all your information with the government...

 

[gugu]

One recent case reported in the Village Voice: data used to pressure Craiglist to close its adult services section was junk science. See article here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-...-junk-science/

And just like Poulain after a rebuttal by judge Himel, Shapiro chose denial as a safe heaven after the examination made by the Voice. Thanks for the link. Human trafficking and prostitution are probably the most contaminated fields of research today. Thanks for the link.

No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. [...] It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.

I agree with you as far as many medias are concerned. But I think the intentions of the lady in laying down a few numbers, which look realistic at first hand, were transparent: sending a message to the public on how much tax is eluded by purposively keeping the sex industry underground for old age moralistic reasons. I see no reason for her to understate data for that purpose.

Point is that both sides cannot be trusted to provide accurate numbers as evidenced here.

I hope you do not consider your previous table corner calculations as evidence of one side providing inaccurate reporting of numbers. Your maths, as I demonstrated elsewhere, are of the type discussed here: flawed, based on wrong assumptions and, one might think, either driven by undisclosed agendas or trolling, a more accurate word to describe a self proclaimed contrarian.

 

[eastender]

Numbers are Numbers

I hope you do not consider your previous table corner calculations as evidence of one side providing inaccurate reporting of numbers. Your maths, as I demonstrated elsewhere, are of the type discussed here: flawed, based on wrong assumptions and, one might think, either driven by undisclosed agendas or trolling, a more accurate word to describe a self proclaimed contrarian.

That you did not verify and run the numbers before reaching conclusions is a weakness that is inherent in your position. That you were caught is typical of your efforts.

The basic elementary school calculations stand on their own and clearly show that the revenues are insufficient for the number of people involved. Nice looking raw number that simply does not stand once analyzed.

 

[sigma69]

I agree with you as far as many medias are concerned. But I think the intentions of the lady in laying down a few numbers, which look realistic at first hand, were transparent: sending a message to the public on how much tax is eluded by purposively keeping the sex industry underground for old age moralistic reasons. I see no reason for her to understate data for that purpose.

I went back and watched the clip again. The $7000 figure comes from the reporter and not the lady (at least not directly). And it is "up to $7000", not $7k every week.

I suspect that the lady offered a range of numbers (from...to) and the reporter chose to use only the highest number.

I totally agree with you that sex workers would like to send a message to the public about how much is lost by keeping all this activity in the black/gray market.

The reporter's motivation is more sensationalistic. IMHO. Cheers!

 

[gugu]

That you did not verify and run the numbers before reaching conclusions is a weakness that is inherent in your position.

OK then let's go.

"If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week".

What is this assumption based on?

 

[eastender]

Why?

OK then let's go.

"If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week".

What is this assumption based on?

Provide your own model or justifications. You are the one who took the TVA presentation at face value. and capped revenues at $7,000/week.

It is up to you to provide a viable distribution of the hours for 21 people in a fashion that balances with the interview portraying a business that generates a maximum of $7,000 per week,renting three rooms for incalls.

 

[gugu]

Provide your own model or justifications. You are the one who took the TVA presentation at face value. and capped revenues at $7,000/week.

It is up to you to provide a viable distribution of the hours for 21 people in a fashion that balances with the interview portraying a business that generates a maximum of $7,000 per week,renting three rooms for incalls.

Oups! It looks like you are already running into problems. Come on, make an effort. I have a few more questions concerning your assumptions before we examine your calculations. Don't quit on the first one.

I did not provide any model. You did. I did not challenge the lady's number. You did.

 

[eastender]

Blind Acceptance

Oups! It looks like you are already running into problems. Come on, make an effort. I have a few more questions concerning your assumptions before we examine your calculations. Don't quit on the first one.

I did not provide any model. You did. I did not challenge the lady's number. You did.

You blindly accepted the ladies numbers implying that it was sound.

35-40 hour week is part of the mainstream so it is a solid base for expectations in the sex trade.

 

[eastender]

One thing to keep in mind is that ALL this money is directly and immediately reinjected in the economy. So imagine the real contribution of sex trade in the non-gray market. Me and my friends are glad to be in the upper level of supporters of the Quebec economy.

But so is the money generated by the kid flipping burgers or working at the minimum wage. Even then some of the kids manage to save a bit basically because they are living at home.

Risk and effort for negligible return does not make sense.

 

[gugu]

Y
35-40 hour week is part of the mainstream so it is a solid base for expectations in the sex trade.

Well, maybe you should have a look at the agency sites ‘ schedules and “who on tonight”.

Based on today’s schedules (Wednesday nights are better than average night for agencies, I believe), here are some results

Extase:

Total number of girls: 30
Girls working tonight: 6
Total number of working hours tonight: 48
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 336
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 12.

Montreal lust:

Total number of girls: 8
Girls working tonight: 2
Total number of working hours tonight: 13
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 91
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 12.

Angel escorts:

Total number of girls: 21
Girls working tonight: 7
Total number of working hours tonight: 51
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 357
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: 17.

Montreal sex city:

Total number of girls: 6
Weekly total hours (based on this week schedule): 120
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: 20.

Satin dream:

Total number of girls: 6
Weekly total hours (based on this week schedule): 203
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 34 (I’m impressed here!)

The average for all of the girls of these 5 agencies is less than 16.

Do we need to verify further with other agencies?

 

[eastender]

Incall / Outcall

Well, maybe you should have a look at the agency sites ‘ schedules and “who on tonight”.

Based on today’s schedules (Wednesday nights are better than average night for agencies, I believe), here are some results

Extase:

Total number of girls: 30
Girls working tonight: 6
Total number of working hours tonight: 48
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 336
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 12.

Montreal lust:

Total number of girls: 8
Girls working tonight: 2
Total number of working hours tonight: 13
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 91
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 12.

Angel escorts:

Total number of girls: 21
Girls working tonight: 7
Total number of working hours tonight: 51
Weekly total hours (7 days based on today): 357
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: 17.

Montreal sex city:

Total number of girls: 6
Weekly total hours (based on this week schedule): 120
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: 20.

Satin dream:

Total number of girls: 6
Weekly total hours (based on this week schedule): 203
Average hours/week worked by the agency girls: less than 34 (I’m impressed here!)

The average for all of the girls of these 5 agencies is less than 16.

Do we need to verify further with other agencies?

The discussion is about incall out of a hotel or motel.

Satin Dreamz - corrected your misidentification/spelling, MSC, Montreal Lust, Angel Escorts,looks like you are using outcalls to support an incall work schedule.Not buying in the least. Incalls operating out of motels have longer hours.

Example: Our Affair comparing board advertisers, which is incall with older providers - niche downtown marketing features three ladies with posted schedules averaging 32 hrs a week.

So this is your best effort trying to sneak outcall data past everyone for an incall discussion. Very disappointed. .